Standing Committee A

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Traffic Management Bill

David Jamieson: I beg to move,
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Traffic Management Bill the Standing Committee shall meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.25 am and 2.30 pm; 
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 39, Schedule 1, Clause 40, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 41 to 50, Schedule 4, Clauses 51 to 60, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 61 to 69, Schedule 7, Clause 70, Schedule 8, Clauses 71 to 73, Schedule 9, Clauses 74 to 80, Schedule 10, Clauses 81 to 86, Schedules 11 and 12, Clauses 87 to 93, new Clauses, new Schedules; 
 (3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 12th February.
 It is a pleasure, Miss Begg, to serve under your chairmanship. I have done so on a number of very happy occasions, and I hope that the next few weeks will be just the same. It is also a pleasure to be here on such a quiet day in Parliament. Very little is going on, and I suspect that there will be enormous press and other interest in what is happening in this Committee, as opposed to elsewhere in the House. 
 There was general agreement between the usual channels that about eight sittings would be sufficient to deal with the Bill. Obviously, we want to get on with considering it, but we want to do so in a way that is commensurate with proper scrutiny. At last night's meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee—chaired by this Committee's co-Chairman, Mr. Beard, under whose chairmanship we also look forward to serving—I asked whether the Opposition needed more time, and there was no indication that they did. None the less, the Government will be quite happy to reconsider the matter as the Bill proceeds, because we want it to receive proper scrutiny. All being well, we should make good progress. I hope that we can complete part 1 by the end of today, parts 2 and 3 by the end of Thursday, parts 4 and 5 by next Tuesday and the remainder of the Bill, including part 6, by Thursday 5 February. 
 The principles behind the Bill are clear, and I hope that most of its aims are uncontroversial. It will empower the Highways Agency and local authorities to get to grips with some of the causes of congestion and disruption on our roads, including the motorway and trunk road network and local roads. It complements the other efforts that we are making towards the same end. We are creating additional capacity at key pinch points in the strategic road network and investing billions of pounds in local transport capital, including the £1.9 billion that we announced as recently as December. 
 We want to get to grips with some of the unnecessary disruption that we all face on our roads and to keep traffic moving on the motorways and 
 trunk roads. The new traffic officers at the Highways Agency, whom I hope we will have time to discuss today, will be given the job of clearing up after minor incidents and accidents, of ensuring that people are held up no longer than they need be, and of making our roads less congested and much safer. 
 I also hope that we can get on with discussing how we get the traffic flowing on local roads. The Bill places a new duty on authorities to keep traffic flowing, and there are new powers to enable them to overcome some of the greatest barriers to free-flowing traffic, including powers to control utility street works so that roads are not dug up at the convenience of whoever wants to dig the hole. The Bill will put authorities outside London on a par with those in London, so that people in all parts of the country will follow the accepted rules of the road. With those words, let me say that I am looking forward to our debates.

Christopher Chope: Welcome to the chair, Miss Begg. This is the first time that I have had the privilege of serving under your chairmanship, and I very much look forward to the experience. I am delighted to say that Conservative Members are taking the Bill seriously, which is obvious from the fact that we have an extremely high-powered team, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and a powerful, speaking Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
 In introducing the programme motion, the Minister almost made a Second Reading speech. We have no argument with the principle that we should try to reduce congestion on our highways, but we have concerns about much of the detail of the Bill. The Minister referred to events and discussions taking place elsewhere in the House today concerning funding for higher education. That is an argument involving about £1 billion of funding for universities. In part of this Bill, there is a proposal for the extension of lane rental, which would impose a burden of £1.2 billion on ordinary consumers of our utility services. That is a large figure in a significant part of the Bill that has not hitherto attracted sufficient public scrutiny or interest. 
 We do not accept the principle that a Bill such as this should be programmed from the outset. Therefore, we shall not support the motion. However, I always listen to what Ministers say and I have no reason to doubt the Minister's sincerity. If he is more interested in ensuring that the Bill is properly scrutinised than in forcing it through in a particular period, I am sure that we can make progress in a reasonable way without the pressure of a programme motion. That, indeed, is why I believe that it is regrettable to start with one. Years ago, we trusted people on the basis that if it turned out after a long time that a Bill was not being properly scrutinised and there were unnecessarily long speeches early in its scrutiny, the Government could take appropriate action. I hope that we can establish mutual trust from the start, but that is made difficult by the fact that there is a programme motion before us. Having 
 said that, I hope that the Bill will be properly scrutinised. 
 The Minister indicated that he hopes to be able to complete part 1 of the Bill today. I do not know whether that is a realistic aspiration. The Government do not seem to be fully prepared for the Bill, which is one reason why it took some time to come to Committee after Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for having made available a schedule of the secondary legislation that will flow from it, and I note that there will be five separate pieces from part 1 alone. Going by the priority accorded to them, many will be introduced by statutory instrument by early summer 2005. It would have been better if many of those provisions had been written on to the face of the Bill so that we could discuss them in Committee. Then, as part of the Bill, they would reach the statute book when it does without the need for subsidiary legislation. The Minister thinks that it should be easy to forecast how long a Bill will take in Committee, but forecasting is difficult when a Bill contains as many provisions as this one does for secondary legislation, the full details of which we are honour bound, as a conscientious Opposition, to tease out of the Government. 
 Sometimes, the Government are prepared; they know exactly what will be involved, they have drafts of the secondary legislation for the Committee to see, and regulations based on those drafts can be introduced as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. That does not seem to be the situation with this Bill. From the schedule produced by the Minister, it seems that quite a lot of the regulations and guidance will involve work that has not yet started or has only just started. That shows that the Government are being rather unreasonable in saying that time is of the essence and in forcing the Bill through in a specified time when we know that they, who have all the resources available, have not yet got down to the detailed work involved in much of the secondary legislation that the Bill will give them the power to introduce. 
 That is probably enough of an opening salvo. I hope that we will be able to discuss and consider the legislation in a constructive and good-humoured way in the great tradition of Parliament.

John Thurso: It is a great pleasure, Miss Begg, to be under your chairmanship again, albeit for the first time outside the Scottish Grand Committee? I was grateful to the Minister for making it possible to meet his officials to receive an explanation of much of the detail of the Bill. That was extremely useful as it allows proper scrutiny.
 As I said on Second Reading, we agree with the principles of the Bill. However, considerable concern was raised by various aspects of detail that we hope to tease out in Committee, particularly about safety, the environment and those aspects of devolution that relate to the Greater London authority. It would have been helpful if draft guidance had been available to show the Government's intentions. It would be extremely helpful if those guidance notes were to be made available, as they will be critical to future management of the Bill. 
 The Liberal Democrats are broadly content with the programme motion, particularly as the Government have made room for further sittings, should eight prove insufficient. We are grateful for that. Accordingly, we are content with the motion.

Greg Knight: May I add mine to the felicitations that you have already received this morning, Miss Begg?
 I was very disappointed when the Minister moved the programme motion, as I have always regarded him as a fair and reasonable chap. I wonder why he is not prepared to wait and see, particularly with paragraph (2). The motion is part of a new procedure adopted since 1997 when the Government were first elected with a huge majority, and it smacks rather of Government impatience with those who belong to other parties and how proceedings are dealt with in this place. 
 A few years ago, when I had responsibility for whipping matters in the Conservative Government, a junior Whip told me that he was concerned about the lack of progress in a Standing Committee and warned me that we would need to consider a guillotine. The Opposition were making a meal of the early parts of the Bill, and no progress was being made. I asked whether he had spoken to the Opposition to ascertain whether they could agree an out date. As a Government Whip, I was not at all concerned about how long the Opposition took on each part of the Bill; my only concern was the out date. If the Opposition wanted to spend more time on the early parts of the Bill, that was surely a matter for them, since they were the ones scrutinising it. The Junior Whip left, and our Minister spoke to the member of the Committee leading for the Opposition, who was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who now happens to be Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was fair and reasonable. He said that the early parts of the Bill were those that he wanted to spend time on and that the fact that he was doing so should not be taken as filibustering. He guaranteed that the Government would have the Bill by a certain date. On that basis, we did not consider guillotining any part of the proceedings, and the right hon. Gentleman was as good as his word. 
 Why does the Minister not trust the present Opposition in the same way that we trusted his party when it was on this side of the Committee Room? I hope that if we need extra time properly to scrutinise this matter, he will remember, and adhere to, his opening words that he would be prepared to reconsider the programming motion, if he felt that there was a need to do so.

David Wilshire: I add my good wishes to you, Miss Begg, and I look forward to working with you.
 To save my making a point of order later, Miss Begg, I should raise a question that I always raise, having been told off by one of your co-Chairmen long ago for taking off my jacket without asking permission. Will you rule at some point whether I, at least, may take my jacket off, should the weather improve?

Anne Begg: I can make that ruling now. If any hon. Member really feels that it is warm enough to want to take a jacket off, I have no objection. Having left Aberdeen in the middle of a snowstorm last night, however, I think that it is highly unlikely to happen.

David Wilshire: Those of us from the south-east do not understand your problems, Miss Begg.
 During the introductions, someone speculated that it might be better to be downstairs today rather than up here on the Committee Corridor. I assure Government Members that, if they leave the Room in a hurry, we will render first aid on their return from their Whips Office, should it be necessary. We look forward to seeing what happens today. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said that we object to the programming motion in principle, and we most certainly do. The Minister suggested that there is general agreement on it, but there were two votes last night in the Programming Sub-Committee, in both of which we voted against the motion. There is no general agreement, but that is not to say that there will not be co-operation and good will. 
 We object to the motion in principle. Last night, it was suggested that a hopeful way to proceed would be to agree to reach a certain place tonight and a certain place tomorrow. That was suggested, however, under an imposed deadline—we must finish by 12 February. That is not good will. That is saying to us, ''This is what you will do. However long we take on anything, you will finish by such and such a date.'' We object to that in principle. If we can keep to such a timetable, of course, we will. The Minister would like to get to the end of part 1 today, and we would not stand in the way of that for the sake of it. We will keep to that time limit if it makes sense to do so given the debate and the issues raised, but we will not agree to that in advance, because we do not know what will transpire between now and whatever time the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) wants us to stop at. We object to the imposition of a deadline, which must be kept to irrespective of any issues raised or suggestions made during debate. That is not the way to scrutinise legislation. 
 I return to the suggestion that there is general agreement on the motion, and I choose my words with care. There has been, at the very least, a misunderstanding. I am conscious of the convention of this House that Government Whips do not speak, so I will not take advantage of the hon. Member for Lincoln, who cannot answer. I leave the matter by saying that the hon. Lady and I, in all sincerity, take different views on whether eight is an acceptable number of sittings. That is a matter for the past. The Minister said that eight was a sensible number of sittings and that nobody had made representations. It is extraordinary that he has not worked out that I do not need to make representations, because the motion allows for 12 sittings. The only guillotine in the motion is that imposed in the Chamber, which is that we finish by midnight on 12 February.

Tony McNulty: Half-past five.

David Wilshire: Well that just shows that Whips do not always get everything right. I must add, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch very nicely said that he had a high-powered team. In reality, we have a high-powered three plus a Whip, as will become blindingly obvious.
 Whether the Committee sits until 5.30 pm or midnight is neither here nor there. We can continue beyond the eight sittings that the Government say are necessary, so we do not have to worry about that for the moment. We can continue into a third week. I said in the past, and say again, that there was at least a misunderstanding on both sides. It would be churlish of me not to say that I agreed to the suggestion that we meet at half-past nine. I suspect that all members of the Committee and both Chairmen support the idea of not being dragged in here earlier than that. 
 We do object in principle to the motion, and there are very good reasons for doing so. I do not want the Minister to say ever again that the programming was generally agreed to. There is no general agreement. The Opposition oppose it, and we wish to press the matter to a Division.

John Redwood: I rise with great reluctance, because the Government have created a very silly problem. There was no need to guillotine the Bill. Opposition Front Benchers have stated that they are in favour of what it is intended to achieve.
 I have a strong interest in the Bill. Its aim is admirable and, as the Committee will have seen, I have tabled several new clauses. They will be taken at the end of our sittings, so I have a strong interest in getting to them in reasonable time so that everyone on the Committee has enough time to appreciate how wonderful they are and how much they could contribute to achieving the Bill's objectives. The Bill is well intentioned, but it does not yet have enough substance to achieve what it sets out to do. We will probably debate that point when we reach the new clauses, so I do hope that we get to them in sensible time. My hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench may share that hope. They believe, as I do, that the Bill, well intentioned as it is, needs beefing up. 
 The idea that the Minister expressed this morning is therefore far from helpful. Under your excellent chairmanship, Miss Begg, everything may run smoothly and the Committee may not need to spend a whole day on part 1, yet the Minister said that that was all that he wanted to cover today. If we discover that his hon. Friends do not want to talk about part 1, I hope that we can make sensible progress so that we have more time to discuss the things that Members do want to discuss. As soon as Ministers start to introduce timetables, disciplines, threats and hints about where they want to be, there is a tendency for the debate to expand to fill the time available on the less important things, and for the Committee and, in due course the House, to be frustrated that there was not enough time to debate the things of real interest. I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind before he becomes too prescriptive about where one should be at 
 any given time. I, for one, assure him that I want the Committee to make reasonable progress and to reach the new clauses in good time. I do not want still to be serving on the Committee in two months' time. That would be unnecessary and long-winded. Too many sideshows, such as a debate on guillotines, absorb time that could be more profitably used. 
 With those thoughts, I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to the direction in which the Committee wants to go and not to set too many milestones that may be unrealistic in either direction. Some milestones may be too far forward, others may be too close.

David Jamieson: That was a short and useful debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that he had a high-powered team. When I was in opposition, I served on a Committee for which we said that we had a high-powered team. The then Minister rather unkindly referred to our team as extinguished volcanoes. I will not make that comparison today.
 I hope that we can find enough time to consider all the matters that we should. There seems to be a slight difference between the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The right hon. Gentleman, who has held quite high office in Government, said that what was important was the out date, whereas the hon. Gentleman said that that was a restriction. An out date was decided downstairs. Before that date, of course, we have time that we can use to scrutinise and discuss the Bill. I hope that we can achieve that scrutiny within the time.

David Wilshire: What the Minister overlooks, of course, is that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was a Government Whip. Government Whips, as the Minister has shown, are very important. I am but a humble Opposition Whip, and my requirements are slightly different, on occasion.

David Jamieson: I shall not interfere in what is clearly a difference of opinion on the Opposition Benches.
 The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) made the point that the Opposition had the opportunity to meet the officials working on the Bill. I hope that that provided a helpful opportunity for the officials to answer questions. If the Opposition have questions that they need answered to gain clarity about aspects of the Bill, I again offer that facility to both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends. 
 I note that the right hon. Member for Wokingham wants us to make good progress. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch has also taken note of that. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's new clauses appear relatively early, as they are relevant to particular provisions, but I think that the Chairman has selected some to be dealt with near the end of our deliberations. We look forward to a sting in the tail, so to speak, as we near the end of the Bill. 
 I hope that we shall have sufficient time before 12 February to consider all the matters in the Bill and to scrutinise it properly. If more time proves to be available, I hope that that can be discussed through the usual channels, in the way that the Opposition want, and as I suggested in my earlier remarks. 
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Traffic Management Bill the Standing Committee shall meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.25 am and 2.30 pm; 
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 39, Schedule 1, Clause 40, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 41 to 50, Schedule 4, Clauses 51 to 60, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 61 to 69, Schedule 7, Clause 70, Schedule 8, Clauses 71 to 73, Schedule 9, Clauses 74 to 80, Schedule 10, Clauses 81 to 86, Schedules 11 and 12, Clauses 87 to 93, new Clauses, new Schedules; 
 (3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 12th February.

Clause 1 - Traffic officers: introduction

Anne Begg: I remind the Committee of the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available on the Table in the middle of the Room. I remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule my fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.
 Having heard no trilling of mobile phones, I assume that all hon. Members have turned them off. If not, I suggest that they do so now. I hope that members of the Committee will live up to their fine words this morning about intending to move speedily through the Bill while also giving it the detailed scrutiny that it requires. I am sure that my fellow Chairman would agree with that.

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in
page 1, line 9, after first 'the', insert 'safe'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 1, in 
page 1, line 9, leave out from 'network;' to end of line 11.
 No. 26, in 
page 1, line 9, leave out '; or'.
 No. 27, in 
page 1, line 11, at end insert 
 '; or 
 (c) the detection and enforcement of traffic law and regulation on the relevant road network'.
 No. 87, in 
page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(ba) liaison with local traffic authorities to assist the management of traffic moving over relevant and local roads'.
 No. 2, in 
page 1, line 15, leave out from 'State);' to end of line 2 on page 2.
 No. 145, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 17, after 'the', insert 'safe'.

John Thurso: This is the first time I have ever sat on a Standing Committee on a Bill, Miss, Begg, and I did not expect to speak to the first amendment. If, therefore, I proceed incorrectly, I beg your indulgence and the Committee's, and hope that you will speedily put me right.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and I tabled amendments Nos. 86 and 87, which affect subsection (2) but fulfil separate purposes. Amendment No. 86 would make it clear that the role of traffic officers is connected with the safe movement of traffic as part of their overall duties. It might be argued that that would put too much emphasis on safety, but nothing in part 1 as it stands refers to safety. Having no mention of safety could mean that the sole duty of the traffic officers was centred on moving traffic along. There are times and places where there could be a conflict between best practice for safety and what might be best for congestion. In those situations, officers will need to have due regard to safety. I am not at all certain that the amendment is the perfect way of achieving that aim, so if the Minister would like to suggest a better way, I should be delighted to listen.

Greg Knight: Does not ''management'' suggest an ordered routine and, by implication, that it should be ''safe''?

John Thurso: That is an interesting question, about which we could have a long debate. When I used to lecture on the difference between management and leadership at Cranfield and other places, we spent a great deal of time arguing about what management was. Many companies refer to health and safety management as something separate. The responsibilities of company directors for health and safety are clearly set out apart from their fiduciary and other duties. That is because successive Governments have rightly insisted that health and safety in the workplace is so important that it needs to be singled out from overall management. I should like to draw a parallel between that and the provisions in the clause. I do not seek to force the amendment, but wish to find a way of ensuring that a proper regard for safety is part of the overall duties of a traffic officer. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety for having suggested the amendment, but I am aware that others may be possible.
 Amendment No. 87 would add a new duty on traffic officers, after subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), to liaise with local traffic authorities. The reason for that is that we are entering uncharted territory. We are going to have a new force of officers to deal with traffic, new traffic managers and, possibly, new traffic directors. Many in local government are worried that 
 if those in such posts are allowed to go their own sweet way without due regard to what local authorities try to do, we might end up with a dialogue of the deaf. Amendment No. 87 would therefore impose a duty to discuss what is going on with local traffic authorities. There is a feeling that the Bill does not anticipate the concerns of equivalent staff employed by local authorities. Amendment No. 87 makes it clear that there should be a relationship with the authority, because officers might not be aware of its traffic management pressures, including issues that arise from duties set out elsewhere in the Bill. The duty to liaise will therefore ensure that the two parties talk to each other.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. One cannot go far wrong, one might think, in concentrating on safety and liaison, particularly when discussing road traffic. I have no quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that the Minister will say why the amendments should not be incorporated in the Bill.
 Turning to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment to discover why we need clause 1(2)(b), which states: 
''the performance of any other functions of the appropriate national authority (in its capacity as a traffic authority or highway authority).''
 What exactly does that mean and can the Minister expand on it? 
 Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 would make it clear that 
''the detection and enforcement of traffic law and regulation on the relevant road network''
 is a material part of the duties of a traffic officer. Does the Minister regard the role of a traffic officer as akin to that of the community support officer who supports the police in their role nationally? Will the traffic officers have a similar role vis-à-vis the road traffic law, or will they be restricted to clearing away incidents and removing obstructions from the highway? 
 The Minister may think that the detection and enforcement of traffic law is important. For instance, he may think that if a traffic officer is first on a scene at an accident, he should be responsible for making notes and asking questions, as appropriate, centred around evidence that there has been a breach of traffic law and regulation on the road network. 
 We know that the incidence of breaches of traffic law is great. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that most people would regard the drivers of vehicles that crash into the back of others on the highway because they are not driving at a safe distance as having a greater degree of culpability than those caught speeding at 85 mph or 95 mph on the motorway in clear conditions, especially when no lives are put at risk by their driving behaviour. However, relatively few people involved in the concertina accidents that bedevil the motorway network, which take a long time to clear up, are prosecuted for driving without due care and attention or of driving without 
 reasonable consideration for other road users. If the knowledge that their being involved in such an accident results in drivers being proceeded against, we may see an improvement in the quality of motorway driving. The same should apply to those who hog the outside lane or overtake on the inside. 
 I am interested to hear what the Minister thinks the relationship should be between the role of the traffic officer and that of the ordinary police, and whether, as a result, there will be more traffic officers and fewer police on the motorways. If traffic officers are first on the scene of an accident, should they not have some responsibility along the lines suggested by the amendments? 
 Amendment No. 2 deals with Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is an expert on that and will address the Committee on it. The other amendments deal with safety, and they have been discussed. I hope that the Minister will, as a result of this short debate, expand on what he sees as the traffic officer's role.

Brian White: Amendment No. 145 is similar to amendment No. 86 and has, in a sense, been amalgamated with it. When I tabled it, however, I did not realise that the Liberal Democrats would table something similar. I can assure the Minister that it is not normally my habit to agree with the Liberal Democrats. Having said that, it was the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—now the Conservative health spokesperson—who tended to end up agreeing with me in the previous Committee on which I served, which considered the Communications Bill. The Minister may or may not think that the present circumstances are an improvement.
 Amendments Nos. 86 and 145 are about the safe management of traffic. The issue of safety is implicit in the Bill, but, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross rightly said, there is an opportunity to make it explicit. Given the number of deaths on the roads, there are clearly issues around road safety, but as several hon. Members said, there is the possibility of confusion. 
 As the new officers are introduced, however, we will have an opportunity to raise road safety awareness. Much of this part of the Bill is about how the new structure will operate in practice, but the Minister could use this opening to make it clear that traffic officers will play a key role in promoting safety and will have a great opportunity to reduce deaths and improve road safety. It would be a major improvement if the Minister, in considering the practicality of operating the system, took on board the fact that safety should be an explicit and key part of traffic officers' duties.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch rightly predicted that I would address the Committee on the amendments. He also applied the word ''expert'' to me, but it will become clear over the next couple of weeks that I am no expert in anything.
 I find myself in the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). As he demonstrated, it comes hard to say 
 that the Liberal Democrats are being sensible, although the hon. Member for half of Scotland—if I understand my geography correctly—has come up with something reasonable, albeit that he had help from others, as he admitted. I say that because I represent the busiest bit of the M25, between junctions 12 and 15, and anyone who wants to assert that attempts to manage the M25 are, by definition, sensible and safe should come to my constituency. In the light of my experience, I am not persuaded that attempts to sort out even one bit of road will be successful if we simply tell someone to go and manage it in the belief that they will do so sensibly and safely. I therefore have a degree of sympathy for amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Of course, it would be quite awkward if he were to put me in a real fix by asking me to vote with the Liberal Democrats, but we shall see. 
 On amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I do not need to be an expert on Wales to say that amendment No. 2 mops up the point that amendment No. 1 tries to make. Amendment No. 1 deals with places that are not in Wales, while amendment No. 2 applies the same argument to those that are. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to introduce a Bill, saying, ''We are going create traffic officers and to specify what they will do.'' We can debate whether traffic officers are a good idea; that is part and parcel of why we are here. Our judgment as to whether they are a good idea will be based on what they are intended to do. Clause 1(2)(a) makes it clear that they are there for the safe management of traffic on the relevant road network. We can debate that idea, which is reasonable if it will make our roads safer and we can help people to move around more quickly. 
 What I object to, and have done on every Committee on which I have sat—I shall be interested to see whether the Minister can persuade me otherwise—is that, having defined in subsection (2)(a) the purpose of traffic officers, subsection (2)(b) says that they perform other functions. Why bother with a subsection that says what they can do if there is another that says that they can do anything? Alternatively, why have a subsection saying that they can do anything when the purpose of the legislation is to say that they can do something specific? The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to clear that up. We need either subsection (2)(a) or subsection (2)(b); we do not need both. To give blanket permission to officials to do whatever they like is a bad way of going about things, so my preference is for subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a), rather than (2)(b) and (3)(b). Which is it to be? If the Minister says that we need to give general powers, I look forward to hearing his explanation. He will have a mighty task to persuade me that he is right.

Andrew Miller: My connection with RoadPeace, as a patron of that charity, is in the public domain. I also chair the all-party group on road traffic victims, which works in the interests of victims and their families.
 On behalf of victims' organisations, I seek assurances on a number of points. The Minister 
 knows, as does every member of the Committee, that the investigation at the scene of a road traffic crash is a highly specialised task. However, there are enormous contradictory pressures. For example, road users want the road cleared quickly, but in the interests of justice, victims and their families want a thorough investigation. In many instances, the circumstances that an officer faces are similar to those in a house where there has been a burglary; it is sensible to seal off the place so that the scene is investigated as a scene of crime, but the pressures of the situation can result in potential evidence being cleared up quickly in the interests of other road users. It can cause enormous distress to victims' families if the consequence of that is that prosecution cannot take place.

Greg Knight: Is there not a difference in the way in which the police treat different sorts of victims? If the victim merely has a damaged car, the police may, as a matter of policy, decide before attending that if there is no personal injury they will not prosecute, even if it is clear that somebody has been driving carelessly. Then they will make no attempt to preserve the evidence, and that can make it difficult for the person with the damaged car to present proof in a civil action. However, so far as I am aware, in every case in which there is serious injury, the police ensure that the evidence at the scene is preserved.

Andrew Miller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I agree with the line that he is developing. I am obviously putting my remarks in the context of the new position of traffic officer.
 My argument is that the traffic officer should not interfere with potential evidence without the authority of a properly appointed investigating officer. That may mean that, from time to time, motorists will be inconvenienced, but I think that Committee members will agree that where justice needs to be done, such inconvenience may be necessary. 
 There are circumstances in which only one car might be involved. It seems obvious that in such a case there would be no potential for prosecuting another person, and that the car should therefore be removed from the scene as quickly as possible. However, even in those circumstances there are exceptions; the crash might have been caused by design failure. That is increasingly rare with sophisticated modern car design, as I know from the excellent cars built in my constituency. I hope that the Minister has driven in one of them. 
 Will the Minister make it clear that normally, where more than one vehicle is involved and a death or serious injury has occurred, the traffic officer will not attempt to remove evidence before a proper investigation?

Greg Knight: I rise primarily to speak to amendment No. 27, which is a probing amendment. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about this aspect of the matter. Surely, while carrying out their primary duty under clause 1(2)(a), traffic officers should have a
 responsibility to keep their eyes and ears open for traffic law infringements.
 It would not be an onerous duty if traffic officers directing traffic were expected, while there were stationary or near-stationary queues, to have a look at tax discs and make a note of cars with no disc or an out-of-date disc. The information could be relayed to the police. Alternatively, there might be clear evidence from a driver's demeanour that he was under the influence of drink or drugs. Will traffic officers exercising duties under paragraph (a) also be encouraged to look out for other traffic infringements? 
 I appreciate that that might create problems. Traffic officers will not, presumably, be versed in the laws of evidence in the same way as police officers, or trained to deal with troublesome characters. Their engagement should not therefore be at the same level as a police officer's. However, they should surely keep an eye out to see that the traffic that they encounter obeys the law in the relevant respects. It is no part of our argument that traffic officers should be made into cowboy constables, but they should be given direction about their role in the wider duty of preventing motorists from breaking the law in various respects. 
 The benefits would be assistance to the police in detection of traffic offences and to the DVLA in keeping track of vehicles not properly taxed; the Treasury would thereby also be helped to recover some of the money that those motorists avoid paying. I should welcome the Minister's comments on the amendment. 
 On the wider duty in paragraph (a), will the Minister explain the relationship between traffic officer and the vehicles inspectorate? Will the traffic officer assist members of the vehicles inspectorate when they decide to carry out a traffic check? If so, who will have the command position? To whom will the vehicles inspectorate be accountable? We can all understand why the vehicles inspectorate is necessary. The scrupulous owner of a heavy goods vehicle has it plated regularly, which means that it undergoes a test to see that it is roadworthy. An unscrupulous employer, however, may deliberately overload a heavy goods vehicle that he owns so that it carries a larger payload, which makes it dangerous. The vehicles inspectorate therefore performs a valuable role when it checks heavy goods vehicles. 
 I am less certain of the need for the vehicles inspectorate to stop and check private motorists, because a private car that is properly taxed will have had to have had an MOT test within the previous 12 months at the most. I know from personal experience how many times the vehicles inspectorate has decided that it wants to check private cars on a main tourist route at the height of summer, thereby increasing traffic delays considerably. The traffic officer has a duty, which I hope is his prime duty, to keep traffic moving. If the vehicles inspectorate suddenly decides that it wants to stop cars on a road that is a busy holiday route to one of our seaside towns, I hope that the traffic officer can tell the vehicles inspectorate to think again and point out that that is not the right time or place for it to start checking private vehicles. 
 As I said, I well understand why the vehicles inspectorate checks heavy goods vehicles. There is, however, a case for it to have a lighter touch when stopping private vehicles. I hope that the Minister will explain whether the traffic officer will be able to direct the vehicles inspectorate in that regard.

David Jamieson: That was a helpful and good-natured opening to the debate.
 Safety on our roads is enormously important to us, and has been to Governments for a long time—since the 1950s. I am pleased to say that Governments of all parties have seen a reduction in the number of casualties on our roads, to the extent that, for the miles travelled and the number of people who move around our country, we now have the safest roads in the world. In our 10-year plan, we set ourselves a target of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40 per cent., and by 50 per cent. for children. I am pleased to report that after only three years, we have seen an overall reduction of 17 per cent. Spectacularly, we have seen a 35 per cent. reduction in the numbers of children killed and seriously injured on our roads. That must be good news. It is down to the work of a large number of people. 
 Safety is at the core of everything that we do and is the core of this part of the Bill. The amendments tabled respectively by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East are unnecessary, because part of the duties and functions of the Highways Agency has always been the safe operation of the roads. As hon. Members know, it is central to highway and traffic design, maintenance, construction and operation. The agency is, of course, subject to health and safety legislation, which provides an overarching framework for the way in which it operates. There is a difficulty in dealing with safety alone in the Bill a way that would unbalance some of the competing risks and priorities that need to be managed when dealing with incidents on the motorways. We need a flexible approach because, as we all know, every incident is different. No one wants the motorway closed for hours because traffic officers have been driven to take an unduly cautious approach. On the other hand, we want them to ensure that the roads are safe. Earmarking safety could rule out some of the other priorities that traffic officers have, such as keeping the traffic moving. That is an issue partly of convenience, but it is also an important economic issue. The hours lost in congestion through major hold ups and incidents may not create any further risk to people, but they certainly cause massive inconvenience and sometimes enormous economic loss as people try to get to work and lorry journeys are delayed.

David Wilshire: Does the Minister accept that it is also an environmental issue? To go back to my point about the M25 near Heathrow, one of the biggest problems confronting the Minister and his colleagues is that stationary traffic generates more air pollution than aircraft do. The issue needs to be addressed. If this measure helps, local people in my constituency will be grateful.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; there is an environmental issue. A vehicle standing still on tick-over is at the most polluting part of its cycle; it is when it is travelling at perhaps 50 or 60 mph on a motorway or trunk road that it is at the least polluting part of its cycle. Those who live close to major trunk roads and motorways find it a problem when the traffic is congested. I lived for a long time next to the A38, which takes people from all over the country into Devon and Cornwall. My house was no further than 70 yds from the road, and at some times of the year it was extremely polluting. Mercifully, most vehicles are now endlessly cleaner than they were 20 years ago, but it is still a problem.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a good point about what would happen if a traffic officer were first at an incident on the road. Of course, that may well be the case. If traffic officers are going about their everyday duty, patrolling the roads, they may see an incident and be the first there. Sometimes as ordinary citizens, we find ourselves the first person at an incident. 
 Clear protocols of operation will be in place between traffic officers and the police. There will be a clear understanding of what can and cannot be done by a traffic officer when her or she first arrives. In the first instance, their job will be to ensure that no consequential collisions take place following the incident. They might direct traffic away from it. They might phone the control centre and make sure that variable message signs, where available, indicate to other motorists that there is a problem and reduce the speed limit. Such measures could stop consequential accidents. Often, when one incident happens, another occurs, sometimes in the lane going in the other direction thanks to the famous action of rubber-necking as people slow down to see what is going on. 
 The traffic officers would be involved in such preventative actions, and if people were injured, they would offer the sort of aid that any person would give before an ambulance arrived. They would obviously not attempt to move equipment or people in a way that endangered the people or any evidence that was to be collected by police officers. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will find that clause 4 says: 
''A traffic officer shall, when carrying out his duties, comply with any direction of a constable.''
 Once the police have arrived on the scene, which will generally be within a few minutes on a trunk road or motorway, it is the constable, and therefore the police, who takes over. The traffic officer will lend support—very important support—making sure that people are warned of what is happening, slowing down other vehicles and making sure that once the evidence has been collected, the road is clear in good time. That sometimes does not happen at present. We have come across incidents on occasion that have taken many hours to clear, with all the inconvenience and frustration that goes with that. I can cite an example where there was no evidence of a traffic offence, but where it took 11 or 12 hours after a lorry had 
 overturned to clear up. Twelve hours of inconvenience can mean millions of pounds of economic loss for people who cannot get through. We must balance the issues carefully. I think and hope that we have got the balance right.

Paul Marsden: I appreciate that every circumstance is different, but say, for example, there is a prang on a single carriageway that has solid double white lines down the middle, and a queue backs up down the road as the drivers exchange insurance details, documents and so on. A traffic officer arrives, sees that there is no serious injury, realises that the incident can be cleared fairly quickly, and so directs the queuing traffic to cross the double white lines in order to drive past. One could interpret that as an infringement of the highway code, so where does the responsibility lie?

David Jamieson: Traffic officers will initially work mainly on the motorway system, where such considerations would not apply, and on trunk roads. A traffic officer might even tell traffic passing an obstruction on a motorway to move on to the hard shoulder. The hon. Gentleman's example is probably not a very good one. I can think of other examples where a traffic officer might remove part of the central reservation, completely stopping the traffic in the other carriageway while traffic was moved from one carriageway to another. Police officers sometimes do that now if there is a serious blockage. In the normal course of events that would be an offence, but the police have the ability to override that in the interests of safety and convenience.
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne talked about slow moving traffic in hold-ups. Recalling the anniversary of the M11 blockage, I am concerned not only by what happens at serious incidents, but by the possibility of people being left in cars for long periods without food or heat. That poses a further risk to life, particularly to children or diabetics, for example. That is one reason why we must get traffic moving in such incidents and reduce the risks. 
 In August, we faced the opposite situation on the M42. People were trapped on the motorway after it was completely blocked in temperatures above 40º C. In that incident, some of the Highways Agency staff and police co-operated with local welfare organisations and took water and other refreshments to the people trapped in cars in the queue, whose health was at risk. We must consider those issues more widely than within the narrow confines of what has happened at an incident. 
 In connection with amendments Nos. 1 and 26, the hon. Member for Christchurch asked why subsection (2)(b) is necessary. If we remove that provision and restrict the duties that a traffic officer may be asked to perform, the opportunity for officers to undertake activities relating to other traffic or highway functions of the appropriate national authority—the Highways Agency or the Welsh Assembly—will be lost. Such a restriction would be unnecessary and would 
 undermine the service that traffic officers are intended to provide, which is to feed back a unique driver's-eye view of the road network and provide valuable information to the Highways Agency. That will help to ensure that the roads are in good condition and fit for use. Such activity is more closely associated with traditional highways authority functions than with traffic management, but it should not be ignored. There are other important issues that traffic officers could deal with. 
 In practice, traffic officers could report on and sometimes deal with matters relating to highway assets. For example, they could report on the state of the roads, and ensure that signs are appropriately placed, they could report on visible defects in the road or its structure, and they could even identify blocked drains, which was the cause of recent flooding on motorways. Traffic officers could help with other incidental but nevertheless important tasks, such as the potentially powerful role of contributing to education and information exercises with the general public. I hope that my clarification has been helpful. 
 I was staggered to see amendment No. 27, which suggests transferring or extending some police powers to traffic officers. We have no intention whatever of doing that. Traffic officers will obviously have a role to play in reducing congestion and helping traffic to move more safely, but it would be wholly inappropriate for them to enforce the law. That would result in overlapping and conflicting responsibilities between traffic officers and the police, which would be most unfortunate. I seem to remember that a matter of weeks ago—over the Christmas period, perhaps—the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made some strong comments about people who are not part of the police force having a duty to enforce the law. We would not want that duty to be extended, although I accept that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that the amendment was a probing one.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister clarify one point? I understand that community support officers have a specific responsibility to escort abnormal loads on the motorways. I understand that traffic officers, too, will have the same duty. Community support officers are given specific powers of arrest in particular circumstances, and they are given quasi-legal responsibilities more akin to those of the police officer. Are we saying that, in the hierarchy of things, a community support officer will be a superior being to the traffic officer, even when they are carrying out the same function, and even if the traffic officer has higher qualifications?

David Jamieson: They will generally be carrying out different functions. The community support officer works in close association with the police. In certain circumstances, traffic officers could escort large vehicles or abnormal loads, but so can totally civilian bodies. A variety of groups could do that job. However, when traffic officers carry out such functions, they will take on some of the work that the police now have to do, thereby releasing and liberating them to do other things.
 Amendment No. 87, a Liberal Democrat amendment, deals with working in liaison with local authorities. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that we were moving into uncharted territory. That is not entirely so. The Highways Agency and local authorities have been co-operating closely for a long time. We cannot talk about improvements to the strategic network entirely in isolation from the local road network, and we never have. Current planning is underpinned not only at the strategic planning level but at the day-to-day working level. 
 We have created a land use and transport planning system that provides a genuine shift to regional and local accountability and decision making. Regional transport strategies are now an integral part of regional planning guidance, intended to ensure that major investment is properly co-ordinated across transport modes and that it reflects regional and local transport priorities. The Highways Agency works closely with its planning partners, including the local highway authorities, to influence the development of regional transport strategies and achieves an integrated approach to transport investment. Many devices already exist to provide the type of co-operation that the hon. Gentleman wants. We want that to continue, and, when appropriate, traffic officers could work closely with them.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive answers. With respect, the weakest part of his reply so far has been on amendment No. 27, which, as I made quite clear when I spoke to it, is a probing amendment. Will he tell the Committee what a traffic officer's duty would be if a crime stared him in the face? What guidance will traffic officers get towards assisting the police in prosecuting motorists who commit crimes within their sight? That is what we were trying to tease out of him.

David Jamieson: If, in pursuit of their duty, traffic officers saw someone driving erratically, for example, they would be in a good position to report it to the police. What they could not do, as some parts of the police force cannot, is hotly pursue such a driver. Such matters are, quite properly, carefully controlled.
 If a traffic officer noticed that a driver was clearly under the influence of drink, he could draw that to the attention of the constable at the scene, who would be properly trained and would have powers to carry out a breath test and to arrest the driver. Traffic officers will not have powers of arrest. If we invested them with such powers, there would be considerable confusion between the roles of traffic officers and the police. That would not be helpful. 
 Another major role that traffic officers could play would be to act as experienced people on the road. In time, they will be a respected uniformed force. They could assist the police by being expert witnesses—for instance, if they were to see an example of dangerous driving and the driver was subsequently arrested. There are other aspects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, they may be able to assist the police in securing the scene of a crime. They will also have powers to direct people. 
 When there is a collision, they will be able to direct drivers to go one way or another to avoid a particular incident, or to stop. 
 Traffic officers will have certain powers, but giving them powers to enforce traffic laws and, thereby, giving them powers of arrest would be going too far and further than the Bill intends.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister envisage that traffic officers will help to obtain witness statements in cases in which the need to obtain statements from a large number of witnesses is causing delays? That may often be the cause of major delay, because there may be a large number of witnesses to an accident, all of whom must be interviewed before the scene can be cleared. Could traffic officers do that?

David Jamieson: In such circumstances, traffic officers could properly be engaged in identifying people who may be able to give statements to the police. Again, the actual taking of the statements must be a matter for the police. Traffic officers could give considerable help to people who may have something to say, or could help to manage the scene generally, but they would always be under the constable's authority and direction, and they should give any assistance possible. Traffic officers assisting at the site of a collision is one thing, but going a step further and allowing them to take statements would go further than we want the Bill to go.
 I move on to amendment No. 2. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Spelthorne has against Wales. He has an expert on Wales sitting behind him in the right hon. Member for Wokingham. The amendment would remove the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to establish and operate a traffic officer service on the Welsh network. 
 I am not clear why the hon. Gentleman has proposed that. The Bill refers later to Wales and the National Assembly. During its drafting, the Assembly was consulted on the establishment and operation of a Welsh traffic officer service. Indeed, it was at the Assembly's request that the Bill was drafted to enable it, if it wishes, to establish a traffic officer service for Wales. The Assembly is becoming more proactive in traffic management, resulting in some shift of responsibilities from the police to the Assembly, both of which are enthusiastic about further realigning traffic management responsibilities by establishing a Welsh traffic officer service. Therefore, the Government see no reason why the Assembly should not be able to benefit from the legislation.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: There is one more matter, and it might be what the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask about. That is the vehicle inspectorate. Traffic officers will not directly assist the vehicle inspectorate, but they might on occasion work with it. The vehicle inspectorate has powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to stop heavy goods vehicles in areas in which it is accredited by chief constables. In certain circumstances, there might have to be close liaison, as there is now, between the vehicle inspectorate and
 the police—for instance, in my part of the country, where it is sometimes necessary to check holiday coaches in case they are unsafe, the inspectorate and the police work closely. In future, on trunk roads and other major roads—vehicles are not stopped on motorways—traffic officers could be involved and consulted, particularly if it was expected that traffic would be heavy or incidents might occur. I hope that that helps to staunch the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.
 This has been a useful debate, and I hope that my answers have been sufficient to encourage hon. Members not to press their amendments.

John Redwood: I support some of what the Minister has said. He is right to reject the Liberal Democrat idea that the word ''safe'' needs to be inserted. It is obvious that all this has to be done safely. That is inherent in the word ''management'', and it is governed by other legislation, so it would be an unnecessary addition. He is also right to reject amendment No. 27. There must be clarity about the functions of the traffic manager, who needs to be the person to get things back to normal and to allow traffic to flow. There are others with duties to deal with the investigation of offences, and they will be called to the scene of an accident should its severity warrant it. It is important that we do not lose sight of the main point: at the moment, nobody is on the side of other road users, who wish to make maximum use of the road in the easiest way possible, and to minimise inconvenience while guaranteeing the best possible treatment of those who might be injured and sensible investigation in the minority of cases that warrant consideration of whether prosecution is necessary.
 I was not quite so convinced by the Minister's wishing to cling to clause 1(2)(b). He was making good progress with me when he said that he had it in mind that traffic officers might want to report on the state of the highway or of the drains. I can understand that. However, when he said that they might become involved in public education and campaigns, I became a little worried about where the budget for that might come from, and whether the clarity of the function that the Government were rightly designing for the traffic officer would be lost. He did not have sympathy for the amendment designed to make it simpler to understand that the traffic officer is the person charged with the duty of trying to speed the traffic, while others will tackle serious issues when the need arises. Everybody wishes to see safer highways; none of us regards the current slaughter on our roads as acceptable. The way to tackle safety is to create better roads with more segregation between vulnerable users and motor vehicles. We need better junctions, since that is where conflicts are often at their most intense. We also need the right amount of policing of those who drive without licence or insurance and who often ally to that other reckless behaviour. That is probably the most obvious group to target in order to create safer highways free from so-called joyriders who bring so much misery and death in their wake by mistreating their vehicles and threatening other road 
 users. I do not believe that introducing a safety clause in relation to the traffic officer would tackle that problem or make any difference to safety. It is inherent in the panoply of legislation that management must be reasonable and safe. I therefore support the Minister in opposing the amendments. He should, however, think again about the clarity of the traffic officer's task, which might become diluted over the years if we allow clause 1(2)(b) to stand.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the lack of clarity surrounding the traffic officer's task. We must be clear, however, that the purpose of amendment No. 27 is to try to tease from the Government where they stand. Their response to the amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill will introduce a corps of second-grade traffic police by the back door. That was a major concern, and the debate has been useful in making it clear that that will not happen. Later in our deliberations, we will no doubt succeed in obtaining from the Government an assurance that traffic law and regulation will be enforced on the highways just as vigorously as it was when the police were in charge of it, despite the apparent reduction of 550 police officers on the highway network.

David Jamieson: For the sake of clarity, we are not talking about the reduction of 550 officers on the motorway network, but about the liberation of the time of 550 officers to perform other duties. They may well be on the highways and the major trunk roads actually enforcing the law.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister, but if he is assuring us that those police officers will spend all the released time on the highway and motorway network, that is at odds with what the Association of Chief Police Officers has been saying. I am delighted by his remarks, however, because many of us believe that it is vital for the law on the highway network to be rigorously enforced, and the paper has been very useful in that respect.

John Thurso: This small debate has been important and extremely useful, particularly in flushing out the intention behind the legislation with regard to safety. The Minister's response was reasonably full. I fully accept that my amendment is probably defective in that it places too much emphasis on safety. I shall re-read it to see whether the Minister's remarks are satisfactory or whether tabling a different amendment later might be useful. I am very grateful for the support given by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, as I was for that given by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, which was guarded but charitable and in a spirit that I would not want to put to the test. I will save him the bother by seeking to withdraw my amendment, and I will consider the Minister's comments carefully.
 In addition, I shall not press amendment No. 87 to a Division. I largely anticipated the Minister's answer from the helpful advice given by his officials, but I wanted his response placed on the record. If the amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Members for Christchurch and for Spelthorne are pressed to a Division, we shall be quite interested in the argument 
 about whether to include paragraph (b). As a general principle, powers should be defined rather than given broadly. We would oppose amendment No. 27 for much the same reason, and we would not want to see the emergence of creeping highway authority powers. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in
page 2, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(3A) The Secretary of State may issue or approve for the purposes of this Part, codes of practice giving practical guidance as to the exercise of any powers conferred by this Part and in exercising these powers a traffic officer shall have regard to any such codes of practice.'.
 I must have been suffering a touch of masochism when I tabled my amendments. This amendment probes traffic officers' duties and could act as a mechanism by which to address concerns from the previous debate. 
 The amendment is driven mainly by an attempt to have a consistent and proper understanding of the role of traffic officers across England and Wales. In the previous debate, concerns were expressed from several angles about the role that traffic officers should play as regards safety, crime prevention, law enforcement and so forth. Although a code of practice would not be written into statute, it would enable all authorities to have a broad understanding of that role. By referring to relevant safety issues, the environment and other matters, it might also provide a useful way of dealing with some of the problems that we have discussed. Although I am generally, in principle, against vast amounts of guidance and secondary legislation, they might be useful on this occasion.

David Jamieson: The amendment would place on the Secretary of State the responsibility to issue a code of practice. However, under the amendment as phrased, the code would not need to set out traffic officers' tasks. The amendment is also unnecessary and would mean that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as the relevant national authority, had to provide themselves with codes of practice.
 The Highways Agency is already in the process of introducing a system of governance to guide traffic officers in exercising their duties and powers. The agency is, of course, working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers to establish an operational framework for the agency and the police. The intention behind the amendment is therefore already being carried out.

Brian White: There are circumstances in which, for example, emergency street works are required. Will the discussions to which the Minister refers cover circumstances in which utilities and traffic officers might clash over the timing of works?

David Jamieson: I am not sure about street works, because officers will operate mainly on motorways and major trunk roads. The next parts of the Bill relate more to local authority roads. However, there will be clear guidance on how officers should operate in
 connection with those who carry out work on the roads for the Highways Agency or the utilities.
 If I may, Miss Begg, I shall add something to our previous debate, when the hon. Member for Spelthorne led me down the garden path. He talked about the vehicle inspectorate—

Greg Knight: That was me.

David Jamieson: I do apologise; it was the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. There is a certain antiquity to all this since the vehicle inspectorate is now the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. However, it of course still carries out the same valuable role.

Greg Knight: I thank the Minister for updating me on the description of the agency, but my points remain valid, as he admitted, I think.
 Perhaps for the first and last time in this Committee, the Opposition agree with all that the Minister has said on the amendment.

John Thurso: I am delighted to have been the catalyst for such wonderful accord. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. One difficulty with the Bill is that the guidance and secondary legislation by which a great deal of it will take effect have not been available so far. When they are available, amendments such as mine may be clearly seen to be otiose. We may wish to return to the matter later, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Designation of Traffic Officers

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
page 2, line 10, leave out 'individuals as'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 3, in 
page 2, line 10, leave out from 'officers;' to end of line 11.
 Amendment No. 28, in 
page 2, line 11, leave out 'another person' and insert 'the Highways Agency'.
 Amendment No. 4, in 
page 2, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 Amendment No. 91, in 
page 2, line 20, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
 Amendment No. 29, in 
page 2, line 28, at end insert— 
 '(8) No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.
 New clause 17—Duty to consult— 
'In monitoring and evaluating the work and effectiveness of traffic officers, the appropriate national authority shall establish and consult with an advisory group comprising such members as may be considered appropriate.'.

John Thurso: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 89, 3 and 91, which are all designed to do the same thing. As I was not certain quite how to go about achieving the end I had in mind, I browned a covey and had a shot at anything in sight. All three amendments are concerned with powers in relation to traffic officers under the clause. It is my understanding that the things that I want to change are provisions that enable the role of traffic officer to be undertaken by contractors at a later date.
 If I have understood correctly, the Government intend at present that traffic officers should come not from private companies but from the Highways Authority. I have no problem with that, in that they would be Government employees, like community support officers. I have no doubt that under that arrangement they will receive proper training, management and guidance and that much of what we have been discussing will happen in the proper way. 
 If, however, the Government, or any future Government, intended to privatise the relevant powers and move the officers from local or national government employment to being private contractors, that would be to cross an important rubicon. It is important that appropriate legislation should be passed at the time in question, rather than the powers being slipped in now through the Bill. 
 The amendments are designed to get the Government to speak on that point, and to find out their intentions as to the privatisation of traffic officers. If they do not intend it, as I have been led to believe they do not, why are they taking the powers?

Christopher Chope: The explanatory notes on clauses 1 and 2 state:
''In the longer term there is the option to employ contractors to provide the traffic officers.''
 There is no explanation of why that might be necessary or why it is included in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can explain what he has in mind. My understanding is that, in England at least, traffic officers are to be employed by the Highways Agency. That is why amendment No. 28 specifies that the authority from the Secretary of State to designate individuals as traffic officers should be limited to the Highways Agency. I see no problem with that, but I do see a problem with giving a broad power for any Tom, Dick and Harry to become a potential employer of traffic officers, particularly given the importance of their responsibilities. It is appropriate that the national uniform, and national standards and codes of practice should also be under the auspices of the Highways Agency. 
 Amendment No. 29 deals with the qualifications of traffic officers and says: 
''No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.''
 I hope that the Minister accepts that, because it insists on no more or less than what I understand the position will be. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister said: 
''As well as undertaking a check against security service records, the Highways Agency is also in the process of registering with the 
Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Registration with the CRB will enable the Agency to pick up all criminal convictions, and carry out checks against relevant departmental and police records.''
 That is important information, but the amendment would put that requirement into the Bill. The Minister also said: 
''The level of security and criminal record checks that the Highways Agency is expected to apply are equivalent to those that exist for staff currently employed by the Police service, such as Traffic Police and Community Support Officers.''—[Official Report, 13 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 677W.]
 The Minister has supplied me with the Highways Agency job description and person specification for a traffic officer, which says that the eligibility criteria include three years' demonstrable driving experience and two years' experience in an operational role, or one year's experience in an operational role, a minimum of five O-levels or GCSEs and a clean driving licence. The essential criteria include 
''Previous police (patrol or dispatch) or roadside assistance experience . . . Proactive driving skills . . . Basic radio operation and dictation''
 and basic first aid skills. On the basis of what is set out in the Highways Agency's job description and person specification, I do not see how anybody could have a quarrel with the suggestion that traffic officers will be highly responsible people, well qualified to perform the function that they are to be given under the Bill. 
 That contrasts considerably with many others who are employed by local authorities under the civil enforcement regime. Such people seem to be incapable of exercising discretion and appear to have a minimal understanding of traffic law, or even the English language. That has caused much conflict between the motoring public and those enforcement officers, so I am delighted that traffic officers will not fall in that category. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 29, so that that safeguard is included in the Bill.

Brian White: I wish to speak to new clause 17. Second Reading and today's debates have highlighted some of the tensions and balances that Ministers say will be needed. A number of organisations have expressed concerns about that. Being a terrible cynic, and having gained knowledge of some organisations over a number of years, I know that although it would be in their interests to consult, many do not do so. There is a great deal of expertise out there, and it should be utilised. Making consultation explicit in the Bill will go a long way to reassuring those who have fears and concerns. The new clause therefore suggests a duty to consult.

Greg Knight: I rise to amplify the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, particularly with regard to amendment No. 29. Although it is a probing amendment, it is motivated by genuine concern. If the Minister cannot allay our fears, Miss Begg, we would ask your permission to allow a Division on that amendment. I hope that it will not be necessary.
 I wonder how many Committee members have a driving licence. Those who do will know that the experienced motorist has a totally different perception to those who are ignorant and untrained in the use of a 
 motor vehicle. Surely, all those who hold a licence have had as a passenger someone who has never driven a car, who says as you pass a particular turning, ''Turn here'', despite its being clear that it would be impossible to turn the vehicle without rolling it over. On the other hand, we may have had as a passenger a nervous elderly relative who does not drive, who asks us to slow down a mile before you reach the turning that he knows we wish to take. That lack of judgment is born of ignorance, and in some non-motorists it is appalling. 
 We say that a traffic officer should have first-hand experience of driving and of being in motoring situations, so that he can apply that judgment to the situations that arise. 
 The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the person exercising the role of the traffic officer is not of a dubious character, and is not someone who might be tempted to use the position for profit or for some form of criminal activity. 
 I hope that the Minister will be able to address those serious concerns, unless, of course, he is going to say that he gladly accepts the amendment.

John Mann: The devil of these clauses always lies in the detail. I hope that the Minister can give detailed assurances on the points raised by Opposition Members. The track record of the Department for Transport is not good in that respect; the Road Traffic Act 1984, as amended in 1991, includes a series of ambiguities that have a precise impact on the Bill. The question arises also in part 6 of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give detailed and categorical assurances.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned Tom, Dick and Harry. It is Dick that concerns me—the Dick Turpin clause. Thanks to the ambiguities of the 1984 Act, local authority car parks that are managed by private operators operate in a different way from everything else, so there is no opportunity to go to the parking adjudicator. Yet, because of the failure to tighten the wording of that legislation, private operators can operate as they like and can use both civil and magistrates courts, or can attempt to do so. I have raised that ambiguity many times with the Department and with the Minister—I have won in court over it on behalf of a constituent, but it remains in the legislation. I call it the Dick Turpin clause because, for a private operator who has no interest other than profit margins, it is a licence to print. That is the scenario of local authority car parks operated by private operators. The contracts that are drawn up by some of the major operators allow them to print tickets, harass people, and threaten them with criminal legislation to get them to pay fines. 
 It would be dangerous to appoint people in uniform who felt that they could do the same thing. When we discuss civil enforcement, we shall be able to investigate in precise detail whether the proposals will address that ambiguity in the law that gives to latter-day Dick Turpins a licence to print money. I hope to hear the Minister's assurance, in relation to the new traffic officers, that it will not be possible for a private operator, given authority and a uniform and 
 operating solely for the money, to profit by staying only just within the law in pursuing and haranguing motorists, as has happened in the civil enforcement of local authority car parks by private operators.

David Wilshire: I have just a few points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham have explained the importance of amendment No. 29. I agree entirely with them.
 I should like to say something about amendment No. 3, but I have to start from the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 89. I have no difficulty in disagreeing with it, because it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. Taking out ''individuals as'' still leaves the power to get somebody else to designate. I am concerned—I think that amendment No. 3 is a better way of achieving what we seek—about taking out completely the power to authorise other people, irrespective of whether individuals are being authorised. I agree with the spirit of amendment No. 3, but do not like the way in which it is drafted. On the other hand, I am perfectly happy with amendment No. 28 as another way in which to achieve the same thing. 
 It ill becomes me to say that I am worried about the possibility of the Government's being able to privatise something. I have always believed that privatisation is a good thing. On this occasion, I congratulate the Government on saying that they will, in due course, privatise and bring in contractors. What concerns me is that even though I am an enthusiast—the Government are now so converted to my enthusiasm that they have privatised part of my local hospital, but I shall not go down that path now—I do not believe that privatisation of a public service of this sort should be tagged on as something that might happen in the future. They can count on my support in principle if, having set the system up, they introduce a Bill to privatise it. Then we can properly debate all the issues that will arise and all the safeguards that are necessary, but it should not be tagged on to the current Bill. 
 My support for the spirit of amendment No. 89 and the wording of amendment No. 3 or amendment No. 28 arises not because I am trying to stop the Government from privatising something; I am just trying to ensure that they do it properly. I shall be happy to help them.

Tony McNulty: You are very kind.

David Wilshire: I knew that the Government would find that kind. They are increasingly converted to the proper, sensible, Conservative way of running the country. Perhaps they will get there one day.
 The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendment No. 91, the intention of which, I have little doubt, is consequential on amendment No. 89. I say only that if amendment No. 89 falls, and the power remains to privatise the relevant authority, we will need subsections (5) and (6) as a safeguard. I am not criticising amendment No. 91, but I would not support it on its own, because it is a consequential amendment. 
 Amendment No. 4 has not yet been discussed. There are cynics in Parliament who believe that anyone who favours changing ''may'' to ''must'' or ''must'' to ''may'' is up to no good. That might sometimes be the case, but there is a genuine point to be made on this occasion. Subsection (4) states: 
''A designation may provide that it is to remain in force . . . for a specified period.''
 I believe that all the appointments should be, rather than may be, for a specified period. Over the years, experience has taught me that it is difficult sensibly to end an open-ended arrangement in which someone is doing something badly. Before long, the lawyers get involved in unfair dismissal proceedings and all sorts of other things. If someone is appointed for a specified period, however, they understand from the beginning that it will end on a stated date. If one wants to reappoint them after that, there can be a fresh discussion. I have, therefore, always started from the principle that we should have limits on such things. 
 The amendment is not a spurious may-for-must or must-for-may issue—there is a real point to it. If the Government accept that it might be appropriate to have time-limited appointments, why do they not make that an obligation? I do not see why they are afraid of saying ''must'' on this occasion.

John Redwood: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I was swayed by his argument and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire on amendment No. 29. It is important that designated officers should be professional drivers, with a driving licence, so that they understand the problems facing those of us who use the roads in our vehicles.
 I also support my right hon. and hon. Friends on amendment No. 4. It is right that appointments should be for a specified time. Of course, the Bill may include clauses about the circumstances in which such appointments will normally be renewed. However, these are important posts, which bring with them considerable powers to influence our daily lives, so it is 
 a good idea for them not to be awarded automatically or made lifelong. People rightly see that Members of Parliament can play a useful role for up to five years, but they must then check to see how we have done our job. We do not need to go as far as electing our traffic officers, but it would be a good idea for them to have a contract for a reasonable period and for it to be subject to review by the relevant authority. 
 There must have been an error as regards amendment No. 3, because my name is listed among its supporters. Having heard the debate, I can assure the Committee that I was not in favour of it, that I did not write in to have my name put to it and that I am absolutely persuaded that it should be voted down. It is a very poor amendment, which is not up to the usual standards of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government therefore have an unexpected friend, should the Minister be minded to— 
Mr. Wilshire rose—

Hon. Members: Here's the Whip!

David Wilshire: It is not that at all. I simply wanted to remind my right hon. Friend that when we started out, it was explained that there were three very good, seasoned Opposition Members and a Whip. I should, therefore, take all the responsibility for the problems in which my right hon. Friend finds himself and not allow him to criticise my team.

John Redwood: I was not expecting that at all. I assumed that there was a slip-up following my discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends about how to improve the Bill. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Committee will now know that I have, as always, been doing my best to tell the truth. The Government can be reassured that in mine they have yet another vote, should they need it, to vote down amendment No. 3.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.